About your Search

20121222
20121230
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
-called hastert rule there. >> that's not the hastert rule. it was the majority. >> that's true. >> that's not the hastert rule, at all. >> know where you were going to with the majority and the majority. the numbers are wrong. he had closer to 90% of his caucus aligned there, with 20, 25 members that were unclear, but he had the overwhelming, over 90% -- >> he didn't have 218. >> agreed. that's because none of the democrats were going to join. >> that's an unreasonable standard. >> he's not negotiating with nancy pelosi. he's negotiating with the president of the united states trying to work this deal out and certainly it's become a discussion with nancy pelosi and it's not, it's a discussion with the president of the united states in term of trying to work this through and where does he have to turn? he has to turn back to the principles in this negotiation and that's what he's done. >> but i believe he could have passed his plan b if he hadn't gone with the $20 million cutoff and he'd moved toward the center and that had been under discussion with a $400,000 cut off or a $500,000 cut
. the problem has been this hastert rule, this policy of the republicans in the house, that they won't take a bill to the house floor, even if it will pass, even if it's important to the american people, if it doesn't have a majority of republican support. now, if he was willing to break the hastert rule and take the senate bill to the floor of the house, just like the democratic senate bill that would protect everybody under $250,000 a year, from any tax increase, it would pass. >> right. >> it would pass. >> all right. >> so his problem is a self-imposed one. it's this republican policy that they won't take a bill to the floor, unless a majority of their caucus approves, and the tea party effect in their caucus is so bad that they can't get that done. you saw that with the farm bill, you saw that with the highway bill, you saw that with plan "b." it's a repeated dysfunction. >> let's see if we can get past this hastertnation, so to speak. senator whitehouse, thank you so much. >> thank you. >> now let's turn to congresswoman schakowsky. welcome. >> thank you, professor. >> is there any wa
. not one democrat agreed to vote for it. >> let's talk about that plan "b." it was not successful. hastert had some unkind words saying i don't want to be critical of john, but you don't ever bring something to the floor if you don't have the votes. so congressman, did the speaker miscalculate and do you think he'll be challenged for the speakership when the new congress convenes? >> no, he's not going to be challenged for the speakership. he didn't bring it to the floor. he decided not to bring it to the floor. but he could have brought it to the floor if they had even 30 democrats willing to say i'll do what nancy pelosi said we should do. and that plan "b" would have passed. it would have demonstrated we were willing to put revenue on the table and got the wheels greased a little bit for a negotiation. >> john harwood tweeted this. he said gop house members and colleagues, i blame most of this on a block of about 50 members who have the political judgment god gave a goose. do you think the far right of your party is a big part of the problem in washington right now? >> i think the extre
separate things here. there's the filibuster in the senate. but the biggest obstacles is the hastert rule in the house. it has always been hard to see bill that a majority of house republicans would vote for that would be acceptable to president obama. so in many ways, i felt for really months, the only two choices were going over the cliff or abandoning that hastert rule and john boehner being willing to bring up a bill that could be passed by democratic votes, not passed by the majority of republicans. sounded a little more optimistic on the relative gauge we have than over the last couple of weeks. >> they're now running out of venues to discuss this. they discussed it at the white house. tried to get a deal between speaker boehner and president obama. now it's gone to the senate. harry reid and mitch mcconnell will try to work something out. after that, they have run out of both time and places to go for a deal. >> right. most of the time, when there's stalemate, it's tougher for the democrats than republicans because democrats are the party of activist government. they want things to
is going to have to happen is a decision -- the so- called hastert rule. i will not bring anything to the floor unless the majority of my caucus supports it. that is what may need to go here. there is clearly a majority support for doing something, just not a majority of republicans. that is the problem. host: let's look a potentially what you could face if the fiscal cliff begins in january. increase of $400 if your income is $20,000 a year. it increases substantially if your income is $40,000 to $64,000. deanna is on the phone from oregon. republican line. caller: there are so many issues to address here but i certainly wanted to talk to joshua specifically. i retired from the air force after 20 years and recently finished my master's degree. my thesis was on diagnosing and the affects of diagnosing on the economy. one of the things i discovered through my research, which i find remarkable -- my professors as well -- was that there were two types of social security. one that people pay into and one that people do not pay into. the one which is not paid into is the one that is con
-called hastert roll but whatever he can to get enough votes, period drawing from nancy pelosi's caucus and his own to get this true. >> how severe do you think the backlash would be against republicans, especially say looking forward to 2014, midterm elections? >> well, polls seem to show that most people will blame republicans for this if we go over the cliff. they already have this reputation of being obstructists and the spending cuts about by the way, i don't think they're going to do anything about that now. so i think these spending cuts are going to go into effect at least in the january. so that means i think if there's such a thing as going partially over the cliff, i think we'll probably do that. so $1.2 trillion spread out over ten years, that begin in january. unless they can find a way to avert that. of course, about half of that comes down on the military side. so you've got a lot of people in that sector and others who are very nervous about the spending cuts. i don't think they're going to do anything about that at the moment. >> paul brandus, the bureau chief of the west wing
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)